This study opens with a reference to Deuteronomy 33, which, according to Danny Mathews, integrates the Pentateuch's major subjectsGod, Israel, and Mosesin a climactic fashion. For Mathews, this chapter is the capstone of
the Pentateuch (p. 2) and refers to Moses as Israel's founding king (Mathews assumes that Moses is the subject of Deut 33:5 [see p. 1]). Builiding on this observation, and predominately through comparative and literary analysesbut not at the expense of exegesis and canonical observationsMathews endeavors to demonstrate that, [The] Pentateuchal authors adapted tropes and traditions, well
attested elsewhere in biblical and other ancient Near Eastern sources, to
identify Moses as an exalted, even divinized figure the portrayal of Moses in
the likeness of a king serves to elevate Moses and to emphasize the
preeminence of his work (p. 2). By no means does Mathews reject Moses's
characterization as a prophet, but he argues that this has been given undue
privilege.

This monograph consists of five chapters, and in the
first Mathews argues that modern scholars have parted ways from their classical
predecessors. Traditionally driven by methodologies of historical criticism,
but more recently by literary methodologies, modern interpreters often fragment
and/or humanize the portrayals of Moses, emphasizing his prophetic
characteristics in the process. Conversely, ancient interpreters, particularly
Hellenistic interpreters such as Philo and Josephus, emphasized the exalted, quasi-divine depictions of Moses. Mathews's Forschungsgeschichte is brief, but it demonstrates his point.
Recovering the characterization of Moses as a royal figure is necessary to
provide a fuller understanding of Moses.

Chapter 2 is foundational to Mathew's argument because it establishes the presence of royal motifs in the Old Testament and the pervasiveness of these motifs throughout the ANE. In this chapter, Mathews surveys the various depictions of Moses throughout the Pentateuch, ultimately
concluding that the authors utilized and adapted traditional features of royal
portraiture (p. 85). The argument is a comparative one, and the most important
features surveyed and analyzed include Moses's birth narrative, flight and
exile, private commissioning followed by his public emergence, military
success, and status as Israel's lawgiver, judge, and sanctuary builder.
However, the potency of the argument does not exist in any one comparison or
motif. Rather, it is the clustering of several motifs that evinces Moses's portrayal as a
royal figure. Mathews not only emphasizes this repeatedly but also
substantiates it nicely via particular examples from the literature associated with ANE royal figures such as Hammurabi, Esarhaddon, Nabonidus, and Cyrus.

Chapter 3 examines more deeply the phenomenon of
motif-clustering through an analysis of Exod 1:17:7. First, Mathews argues that the infant-rescue motif strongly informs Moses's birth narrative. Matthews goes so far as to suggest that Moses's birth narrative echoes the Sargon Birth Legend to the extent that the Sargon birth narrative was familiar to the author of Ex 2:110 (p. 90). However, such a proposal is not unique (cf. pp. 8790 and footnotes). Second,
Moses's flight to Midian after he kills an Egyptian rings of the flight motif.
Mathews at this point spends a significant amount of time examining Exod 2:1122,
which is structurally and thematically intricate and serves to establish Moses's
identity as a royal figure without claiming that Moses functioned as an actual
king (p. 100). The third and fourth motifsprivate commissioning and public
emergence and validationare intertwined. Ultimately, Mathews asserts that Exod
17 functions coherently and systematically to assert Moses's role as a royal
figure who enjoyed divine sanction.

Chapter 4 examines the clustering of four other motifs. According
to Mathews, Exod 2224 assumes the royal/divine nexus motif, a motif that
posits a uniquely intimate connection between a royal figure and the respective
deity. Alongside this portrayal is one of Moses as the paradigmatic lawgiver
and covenant maker, which was common amongst ancient Near Eastern monarchs as
they bore the responsibility of societal order. Moses is also Israel's sanctuary builder, and here Mathews builds closely upon Hurowitz's work,[1]
who argues that the tabernacle's reconstruction exemplifies a pattern in ancient
Near Eastern literature that understands sanctuary construction as the
quintessential function of a monarch; here, Mathews extends these implications to
understanding Moses's role as a royal figure. In turn, Mathews asserts, Attempts
to categorize Moses as a non-royal figure will ultimately fail, since this
aspect of the work of Moses cannot be adequately accounted for as a part of a
non-royal role (p. 132). Finally, the death and succession motif caps Moses's
portrayal as a royal figure.

Chapter 5 concludes the work. After reiterating his
thesisMoses's characterization as a prophet is dwarfed by the predominant
characterization of Moses as a royal figureMathews finally tackles the
passages that characterize Moses as a prophetic figure: Deut 18:1622 and 34:1012. In both cases, Mathews notes subtle nuances as supporting evidence for his thesis, such as the ambiguity of the syntax in Deut 18:15, the reality that a prophet is described as a mouthpiece (which is misleading in light of the various characterizations of Moses throughout the Pentateuch), and Israel's acceptance of Moses based on his mighty acts (versus the fulfillment of the prophetic word). Mathews also discusses a few common
phrases of description such as Man of God and the Servant of the Lord. In
the case of the latter, Mathews makes a good case for connection between David
and Moses (p. 145). The chapter concludes with some diachronic observations,
which link the development of Moses's characterization with the development of
the major Pentateuchal traditions.

Virtually all of the comparisons invoked by Mathews as
evidence that the Pentateuch's portrayal of Moses is more in accord with ANE
royal portrayals are indirect, often perceptual and/or thematic. Very few
comparisons arise from linguistic connections, direct thematic connections, or
potential cases of literary borrowing. Indeed, Mathews's thesis would have been
bolstered by more direct evidence. However, such a critique may be balanced by the observation that Mathews argues for the pervasiveness of royal motifs throughout the
Pentateuch, which by design attempts to elicit a cognitive response through
symbolism. Thus, in evaluating a thesis that espouses perceptual and symbolic
associations, it may be asked how much direct evidence one may expect. By implication, the
viability of Mathews's thesis should arise from a consideration of the argument
in toto. Seen in this light, Mathews's thesis is attractive. Overall, the
characterization of Moses throughout the Pentateuch mirrors ANE royal
characterizations more than anything else. Indeed, Moses's portrayal recalls
other social institutions, and Mathews acknowledges this. However, Mathews is
correct to assert that the royal characterizations have not only been relegated
by much of contemporary scholarship but are also the most pervasive.

What deserves more attention is Mathews's diachronic
framework used to explain the developments and depth of Moses's
characterization. The earliest shaping of Moses's portrayal, according to
Mathews, occurred in conjunction with the composition of the J/E strata, and
here a core cluster of motifs appears indicating the unique status of Moses as
God's trusted servant who is Israel's shepherd, savior, and leader (p. 149).
With development of the D tradition, and the Dtr tradition for that matter,
Moses's characterization emphasizes his role as lawgiver and covenant maker (p.
149). With P, Moses as sanctuary builder and semi-divine agent proceeds to the
forefront (p. 150). Such a framework is provocative, particularly since it
elucidates the data compiled by Mathews. However, the dates Mathews attaches to
each Pentateuchal literary tradition reflect a framework that does not properly
consider the nuanced traditio-historical associations of these literary
traditions.[2]
A more systematic discussion of these issues would have significantly enhanced this fruitful
study.

This work is useful, deserving familiarization by
specialists of the books that make up the so-called Primary History. The legacy of Moses, in one form or another, informs the narratives of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, and this study rediscovers perceptions invoked by the Israelite historians in their efforts to assess the socio-political and religious changes of the community. Through an
in-depth examination of the motifs surrounding Moses's characterization, Mathews
urges scholars to recalibrate longstanding positions and rediscover early interpretive
trends. Such recalibration and rediscovery will not only open new avenues for study
in the years to come but it also reinforces the complexity of Moses's character
and function for ancient Israelite society.

David B. Schreiner

[1] Most notably, Victor Avigdor Horowitz, The Priestly Account of Building the
Tabernacle, JAOS 105 (1985): 2130; idem, I Have Built You An
Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and
North-West Semitic Writings (JSOTSup, 115; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992).

[2] For example, Konrad Schmid has argued for the composition of a Moses Story,
which situates the composition of the non-P portions of the Pentateuch
alongside a portion of the Dtr material in the Iron II period. As for D
and other portions of the Dtr material, Schmid contextualizes its composition
in the post-exilic period (cf. Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story:
Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible [trans. James D. Nogalski;
Siphrut, 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010]). Particularly interesting
about Schmid's ideas is that they may explain a peculiar feature of Mathews's
study. Mathews periodically states that Moses is characterized as a royal
figure but is never explicitly referenced as a king. Indeed, it would be
anachronistic for the biblical writer to refer to Moses as Israel's first king,
but another explanation may be in order. If this phenomenon is contextualized
in a literary work that spanned Exodus2 Kings, could it be that the refusal to
explicitly equate Moses, a venerated figure of the northern traditions, is
indicative of a Judean writer's effort to appease northern sentiments without
undermining the perceived superiority of the Davidic dynasty?